Charlotte Berg

Primiparous and multiparous maternal ability in sows in relation to indoor and outdoor farrowing systems

The maternal traits of sows were evaluated under both indoor and outdoor housing conditions. Our study included 42 indoor and 57 outdoor sows (multiparous and primiparous sows). Indoor sows were kept in single pens, and the outdoor sows had access to farrowing huts. Each sow’s body weight and backfat thickness were recorded 5 days prior to parturition and at weaning. Piglet weights were recorded 4 days post partum and at weaning. Piglet mortality was pooled across days 0 to 4 and days 5 to weaning. Parturition length (first to last piglet born) was determined from video recordings of 50 farrowings. Outdoor litters grew faster (P<0.001), had less within litter variation in piglet weight at weaning (16.2 vs. 20.6%, P<0.01), and lower mortality from day 5 post partum until weaning (0.58 vs. 1.06 piglets, P<0.05) than indoor litters. The length of parturition was considerably longer for primiparous indoor sows compared to primiparous outdoor sows (234 vs. 157 min, respectively, P<0.05). However, no relation to later piglet performance was evident. We propose that it is beneficial to regard litter size as a crucial link between maternal ability and offspring performance. This link dictates directly the extent of losses in sow’s body weight and backfat, with the extent of loss depending additionally on season and housing system.

Monitoring Animal Welfare on Commercial Broiler Farms in Sweden

This paper describes the background to an animal welfare programme for broilers which has been developed by the Swedish Poultry Meat Association together with production advisors, veterinarians and representatives from the Swedish National Board of Agriculture. The programme aims to improve the general standard of broiler rearing and takes into consideration housing facilities, equipment, management and stockmanship. Using a set protocol, an evaluation is made of the livestock environment, the standard of the buildings and equipment, and management practices on each broiler farm. A monitoring programme for food-pad dermatitis, linked to the welfare programme, is fully described. The design of the broiler welfare programme is discussed, with special emphasis on the results that are fed back to the farmer, the effects of intervention and the importance of follow-up.

Effect of restricted suckling on milk yield, milk composition and udder health in cows and behaviour and weight gain in calves, in dual-purpose cattle in the tropics

The study was conducted to evaluate the effects of restricted suckling (RS) in dual-purpose cows and calves compared to artificial rearing (AR). Twelve Holstein-Zebu cows with calves were assigned to each treatment. Cows were milked once daily in the morning with calves present to stimulate milk let-down. RS calves suckled 30 min after milking and 30 min in the afternoon, whereas AR calves were milk-fed from nipple bottles. The daily saleable milk yield was higher in RS than in AR cows (p < 0.01; 7.44 vs 6.50 kg/day), whereas RS cows had lower milk-fat content (p < 0.001). AR cows had higher California Mastitis Test scores (p < 0.001) and lower lactose content (p < 0.001) compared to RS cows, which indicates an improved udder health in RS cows. AR calves displayed more ‘cross-suck’ during suckling/milk feeding (p < 0.001) and during observations of general behaviour (p < 0.05), and more ‘lick and sniff interior’ during milking (p < 0.05) and suckling/milk feeding (p < 0.01), compared to RS calves. During observations of general behaviour the RS calves were more often observed to ‘walk’ (p < 0.01) and ‘lick self’ (p < 0.05) and less frequently to ‘eat concentrate’ (p < 0.05) than AR calves. Results support the hypothesis that RS increases milk yield, influences milk composition and improves udder health in cows, and decreases abnormal sucking in calves.

The concept of health in One Health and some practical implications for research and education : What is One Health?

Abstract From a strict biological point of view, humans are just one species among other species, albeit one with very special capacities, characteristics, and skills. Among scientists, it is generally acknowledged that we share many features with other animal species, which are certainly relevant when the concepts of health and disease are discussed. The term ‘One Health’ is used in many different contexts and by people with varying backgrounds. However, there appears to be some confusion as to what the term really means, and it is used in a wide range of contexts, often including or bordering concepts such as infection biology, contagious diseases, zoonotic infections, evolutionary medicine, comparative medicine, and translational medicine. Without claiming to present the one and only true interpretation, we will argue for a wide approach using the ‘umbrella’ depiction developed by One Health Sweden. We argue that this one should, compared to other demarcations, be more useful to science. We will also analyze the concept of health on different levels: individual, population, and ecosystem health, and describe how these levels inherently influence each other for both humans and animals. Both these choices are normative and have practical consequences for research and education, a way of reasoning which we develop further in this paper. Finally, we conclude that the choice of term for the approach might be normative in deciding which disciplines or parts of disciplines that may be included.

Time lag between peak concentrations of plasma and salivary cortisol following a stressful procedure in dairy cattle.

BackgroundMeasurement of salivary cortisol has been used extensively as a non-invasive alternative to blood sampling to assess adrenal activity in ruminants. However, there is evidence suggesting a considerable delay in the transfer of cortisol from plasma into saliva. Previous studies in cattle have used long sampling intervals making it difficult to characterise the relationship between plasma and salivary cortisol (PLCort and SACort, respectively) concentrations at different time points and determine whether or not such a time lag exist in large ruminants. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterise the relationship between plasma and salivary cortisol and determine if there is a significant time lag between reaching peak cortisol concentrations in plasma and saliva across a 4.25 h time-period, using short sampling intervals of 10-15 min, following social separation in dairy cattle.Five cows were separated from their calves at 4 days after calving, and six calves were separated from a group of four peers at 8 weeks of age. Following separation, the animals were moved to an unfamiliar surrounding where they could not see their calves or pen mates. The animals were catheterised with indwelling jugular catheters 1 day before sampling. Blood and saliva samples were obtained simultaneously before and after separation.ResultsIn response to the stressors, PLCort and SACort increased reaching peak concentrations 10 and 20 min after separation, respectively. This suggested a 10 min time lag between peak cortisol concentrations in plasma and saliva, which was further confirmed with a time-series analysis. Considering the 10 min time lag, SACort was strongly correlated with PLCort (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsSalivary cortisol correlates well with plasma cortisol and is a good indicator of the time-dependent variations in cortisol concentrations in plasma following acute stress. However, there is a time lag to reach peak cortisol concentrations in saliva compared to those in plasma, which should be considered when saliva samples are used as the only measure of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response to stress in cattle.

Integration of Natural Behavior in Housing Systems

Abstract This paper deals with how the natural behavior of animals kept for production can be integrated when planning new housing systems or making changes to existing housing systems. Natural behavior can be defined as the repertoire of different behaviors animals show when kept in environments where they can carry out behaviors created in the evolutionary process. Motivation and innate behaviors are important aspects of natural behavior, and hindering them may lead to abnormal behavior and stress. One should first get a basic knowledge about the species-specific behavior in the wild or a seminatural environment. Thereafter, key stimuli and key features for normal behavior should be worked out, where after a reduction in space, development of a pen, scientific testing, modification, and finally testing the function in a larger scale should be carried out. Examples of housing of calves during the milk period and housing of sows around farrowing are given.

A Review of Different Stunning Methods for Poultry—Animal Welfare Aspects (Stunning Methods for Poultry)

Simple Summary To avoid unnecessary suffering, poultry and other animals are often made unconscious, i.e., stunned, prior to exsanguination at slaughter. This review describes various stunning methods used for the commercial slaughter of poultry, their mode of action and also the main animal welfare aspects. Furthermore, it includes a short discussion on possible future development of new methods in the field of poultry stunning. Abstract Electrical water bath stunning is the most commonly used method for poultry stunning prior to slaughter, but has been questioned on animal welfare and product quality grounds. Controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS) methods, involving a variety of gas mixtures, have become increasingly common, at least in Europe. CAS methods have been perceived as an improvement from an animal welfare perspective, partly because birds can be stunned without prior shackling, and are generally considered to result in improved product quality compared to water bath stunning. However, there would still be an interest in alternative stunning methods especially for small to medium size poultry slaughterhouses. This review presents an overview of the modes of action and the technical aspects of poultry stunning methods, including novel and emerging stunning technologies.

The effect of stun duration and level of applied current on stun and meat quality of electrically stunned lambs under commercial conditions

Electrical head-only stunning is a widely used method in sheep (Ovis aries) slaughter. To investigate the influence of current level on stun and meat quality in practice, two studies were carried out at a commercial slaughterhouse. In trial one, 200 lambs were randomly assigned to four groups with a current level of 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.25 A, respectively, using 50-Hz sine wave supply voltage and a stun duration of 10.5 s. In trial two, 135 lambs were randomly assigned to two groups, with electrical current of 1.25 A applied for 14 and 3 s. For each lamb, the position of the tongs was observed and classified as correct or incorrect. The stun quality was evaluated based on observations of the corneal reflex, eye movements, rhythmic breathing, head-righting reflex and kicking during the tonic phase. Blood splash (haemorrhages in Longissimus dorsi muscle) was evaluated four days after slaughter. Incorrect tongs’ positioning was seen commonly, and positively correlated with poor stun quality. The lowest current level tested produced an unsatisfactory stun in the majority of animals observed. Short stun duration increased the risk of a poor stun quality. There was no significant effect of current level, stun duration or tongs’ position on the risk of blood splash. These data underline the importance of a correct technique, including choice of tongs’ positioning, sufficient current levels and sufficient stun duration, for electrical stunning of lambs to achieve unconsciousness before sticking and thereby avoiding unnecessary suffering at commercial slaughter.

Potential disease transmission from wild geese and swans to livestock, poultry and humans : a review of the scientific literature from a One Health perspective

ABSTRACT There are more herbivorous waterfowl (swans and geese) close to humans, livestock and poultry than ever before. This creates widespread conflict with agriculture and other human interests, but also debate about the role of swans and geese as potential vectors of disease of relevance for human and animal health. Using a One Health perspective, we provide the first comprehensive review of the scientific literature about the most relevant viral, bacterial, and unicellular pathogens occurring in wild geese and swans. Research thus far suggests that these birds may play a role in transmission of avian influenza virus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and antibiotic resistance. On the other hand, at present there is no evidence that geese and swans play a role in transmission of Newcastle disease, duck plague, West Nile virus, Vibrio, Yersinia, Clostridium, Chlamydophila, and Borrelia. Finally, based on present knowledge it is not possible to say if geese and swans play a role in transmission of Escherichia coli, Pasteurella, Helicobacter, Brachyspira, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Microsporidia. This is largely due to changes in classification and taxonomy, rapid development of identification methods and lack of knowledge about host specificity. Previous research tends to overrate the role of geese and swans as disease vectors; we do not find any evidence that they are significant transmitters to humans or livestock of any of the pathogens considered in this review. Nevertheless, it is wise to keep poultry and livestock separated from small volume waters used by many wild waterfowl, but there is no need to discourage livestock grazing in nature reserves or pastures where geese and swans are present. Under some circumstances it is warranted to discourage swans and geese from using wastewater ponds, drinking water reservoirs, and public beaches. Intensified screening of swans and geese for AIV, West Nile virus and anatid herpesvirus is warranted.

A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health

Several holistic and interdisciplinary approaches exist to safeguard health. Three of the most influential concepts at the moment, One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health, are analyzed in this paper, revealing similarities and differences at the theoretical conceptual level. These approaches may appear synonymous, as they all promote the underlying assumption of humans and other animals sharing the same planet and the same environmental challenges, infections and infectious agents as well as other aspects of physical—and possibly mental—health. However, we would like to illuminate the differences between these three concepts or approaches, and how the choice of terms may, deliberately or involuntary, signal the focus, and underlying values of the approaches. In this paper, we have chosen some proposed and well-known suggestions of definitions. In our theoretical analysis, we will focus on at least two areas. These are (1) the value of the potential scientific areas which could be included and (2) core values present within the approach. In the first area, our main concern is whether the approaches are interdisciplinary and whether the core scientific areas are assigned equal importance. For the second area, which is rather wide, we analyze core values such as biodiversity, health, and how one values humans, animals, and ecosystems. One Health has been described as either a narrow approach combining public health and veterinary medicine or as a wide approach as in the wide-spread “umbrella” depiction including both scientific fields, core concepts, and interdisciplinary research areas. In both cases, however, safeguarding the health of vertebrates is usually in focus although ecosystems are also included in the model. The EcoHealth approach seems to have more of a biodiversity focus, with an emphasis on all living creatures, implying that parasites, unicellular organisms, and possibly also viruses have a value and should be protected. Planetary Health, on the other hand, has been put forward as a fruitful approach to deal with growing threats in the health area, not least globally. We conclude that there are actually important differences between these three approaches, which should be kept in mind when using any of these terms.